Infidel Dog

So what. You're splitting hairs over an irrelevant typo. 10 or 20 grand are both spits in the ocean to the half billion the Zuckerbergs were able to slip through the cracks in America's current 2 tier justice system and had less of an effect. Zuckerbuck millions, in fact close to a half billion, warped the presidential election. D'Sousa's thousands didn't make a dint. His candidate lost. It was selective prosecution by a noted Trump-hating prosecuter.

Because with lawfare the process is the punishment.

I really wish True the Vote would release all the data soon though. It's going to be so cool if some of the NGO's that distributed the ballots turn out to be tainted by Zuckerbucks. I worry though... Apparently there are some criminal investigations based on True the Votes data. They may be waiting for word on that before publicly releasing all the data.

Ya know, Beave...you've gotta stop reaching up your butt for stuff that's already been "debunked." All you're going to get is stinky fingers. Here ya go though...one more time: https://dailyangle.com/articles/2000-mules-true-the-vote-respond-to-ap-fact-check

Or, hey, remember this one, from way back when?

" Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers say her cellmate has claimed multiple times that she had been offered money to kill the Jeffrey Epstein accomplice. Maxwell's lawyers made the allegation in a Wednesday court filing, which sought to secure a lighter sentence in their case. Maxwell was convicted on five of six counts against her in December, with the most severe charge being sex trafficking of minors. "One of the female inmates in Ms Maxwell’s housing unit told at least three other inmates that she had been offered money to murder Ms Maxwell and that she planned to strangle her in her sleep," the filing read, adding that the inmate claimed the payment had been worth "an additional 20 years’ incarceration." "This incident reflects the brutal reality that there are numerous prison inmates who would not hesitate to kill Ms Maxwell — whether for money, fame, or simple ‘street cred,'" Maxwell's lawyers argued. The inmate was reportedly moved to a different unit of the Brooklyn prison where Maxwell is staying, according to the New York Times."

Oh and you've never jaywalked before or went over the speed limit. (Wait...scratch that last one. Not sure you can break the speed limit on a bicycle. Maybe in Beaveworld.) In the circles Dinesh travels in - Democrat, corporate and Republican - slipping your buddy a few extra bucks for his or her campaign is like jay walking or breaking the speed limit. D'Souza is persona non-grata, enemy of the state though. They'd get him for jay walking too if they could. If you can impeach Trump or charge Flynn for the Mickey Mouse crap they did they could probably find a law to charge the Zuckerbergs for their election scam but let's face it, in Biden's "deep state" nobody's looking into it.

Oh and another thing I keep forgetting to mention. I heard D'Souza mention it in an interview. Not sure, but I think it may have been posted here. It's the one where he replies to Ben Shapiro, I think. He says the reason you can't follow the mules box to box with video is CCTV is only targeted on some boxes. He believes they all should have it but they don't.

I've known Beave longer than the rest of you, so I'll back him up on this one. He's no troll. He actually believes every bit of nonsense he peddles no matter how much facts get in the way of his feelings. But you've got to understand he's coming from a different reality than the rest of us. I call it "Beaveworld." In Beave world what you'd like to believe is what is. Except this is the criteria True the Vote used before labeling somebody a mule: "Visit 10 or more drop boxesVisit 5 or more visits to an NGOVisit one of the geofenced drop boxes"

And everything you said is what I said but with snotty added rhetoric. The point remains if the Zuckerbergs can find a way to slip almost half a billion dollars into manipulating the electoral process of a Presidential election but D'Souza gets imprisoned for donated a few grand (OK, 10) over the limit to a buddy's Senate campaign that's 2 tier justice. You don't mind it because your guy gets to rig a Presidential election with his half a billion and the guy from the other side goes to jail for an incalculably lesser effect on a lesser election. That's prog justice for you and you're fine with it. So be it, but don't puff yourself up like you're suddenly the master decider of virtue, because that's laughable.

Oh and speaking of fact checking the fact checkers here's a few you two should really check out but won't. Somebody else might be interested though: https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2022/05/10/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-2000-mules-n561941 https://uncoverdc.com/2022/05/09/2000-mules-and-true-the-vote-debunk-ap-hit-piece/ https://yesi.substack.com/p/2000-mules-fact-checking-the-fake?s=r https://www.westernjournal.com/dsouza-responds-fact-check-2000-mules-paying-deliver-ballots-illegal-every-state/ https://dailyangle.com/articles/2000-mules-true-the-vote-respond-to-ap-fact-check

Actually what we're talking about is fact checking the fact checkers. I know why you and Beave wouldn't like that though. Few Progs would. Beave in particular. I don't call him "King of Wrong" because he's right so much. But if you're 'fact checkers" can't take a little fact checking don't be strutting around like you just received the final word on the subject.

If he thinks he can support that he shouldn't be afraid to debate D'Souza. D'Souza offers to support his claims why can't Tubby?

I was waiting for that one. Dinesh D'Souza did time in jail for donating a few grand over the allowed limit to a buddy's campaign. Zuckerberg and his wife funneled almost a half a billion dollars through a leftist NGO that actually influenced the 2020 electoral process. So spare me your phony, lefty, virtue posture of the morally superior. The 2 tier justice you worship beclowns you.

I can't, but True the Vote says they can and promises to release all the data soon. If they don't I have to grudgingly switch sides on the issue. but if they do...well won't you look silly.

I'd take that bet. Is he even working now? But I tell you what, you reference a single line and a mocking chuckle from Barr as support for what you call "debunking." Very well, it's fair to hear what D'Souza said in reply then: " The level of ignorance displayed by Bill Barr here is truly stunning. He doesn't seem to understand the very concept of geotracking. I'll address this in detail on my podcast tomorrow https://t.co/zfEWm5gVCx — Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 13, 2022 Bill Barr is the stereotypical small-town sheriff, overweight and largely immobile, whose rank incompetence results in the whole town being robbed from under his nose. Then, asked to explain how it happened, Fatso breaks into laughter and insists the robbery itself is “bullshit” — Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 13, 2022

Got nothin' again, do ya? Kind of a sad little life you lead isn't it?

Dinesh D'Sousa also explains how your "fact checkers" fumbled the ball on the accuracy of Geo-tracking. Basically they're using out dated information. He references the New York times and also a court case where the they found the accuracy was the same as putting an ankle bracelet on a prisoner. https://thelibertyloft.com/2022/06/14/dinesh-dsouza-challenges-bill-barr-to-debate-over-2000-mules/ That point and all the others Beave has collected from his online "fact checkers" is addressed "debunked" HERE.

No. What they claim is the ballots were collected at NGO offices. They say they have those addresses. So why don't they produce them? It does seem key. For that you'll have to remember the ol' Breitbart trick where you give the bones the story then as the snotty and phony fact checkers come forward talking like they've found holes, you knock them on their ass and re-ignite the story by releasing the whole data. American Thinker explains: " In the review I wrote about the movie, I explained in somewhat more detail how the program worked, but I urge you to see the film for yourself. The only thing I found a bit disappointing was the fact that the movie did not name the non-profits involved. Well, that disappointment is over. True the Vote has announced that, in a few weeks, it will make available to the public every single bit of information it has regarding the drop-box fraud. Or, as Catherine Engelbrecht, who founded True the Vote, calls it, pulling the ripcord: Releasing the data matters because mainstream media outlets have alternately ignored the movie or, in the AP's case, "fact-checked it." Ali Swenson insists that cell phone information isn't as precise as True the Vote claims and that True the Vote's assumptions are "faulty." Swenson's claim that those cell phone pings are way too vague to be useful is easily debunked. Back in 2018, the New York Times wrote about the extremely detailed information the apps on people's phones provide: At least 75 companies receive anonymous, precise location data from apps whose users enable location services to get local news and weather or other information, the Times found. Several of those businesses claim to track up to 200 million mobile devices in the United States — about half of those in use last year. The database reviewed by the Times — a sample of information gathered in 2017 and held by one company — reveals people's travels in startling detail, accurate to within a few yards and in some cases updated more than 14,000 times a day. (Emphasis added.)" https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/true_the_vote_is_about_to_drop_an_information_bomb_regarding_election_fraud.html

"D’Souza reacted on Twitter: “I’d like to invite Bill Barr to a public debate on election fraud. Given his blithe chuckling dismissal of #2000Mules this should be easy for him. What do you say, Barr? Do you dare to back up your belly laughs with arguments that can withstand rebuttal and cross-examination?” What do you want to bet Barr doesn't have the guts to accept that invitation. Also...

Did you ever see that old Science Fiction film with Sean Connery? Zardoz.

I keep going back to, you'll own nothing, and you'll eat bugs. That's why I'm a conservative. You don't know what you got till it's gone. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Sayings become sayings because there's something about them that makes sense to some important part of you. But you'll be "deus human," they say. Shove that up your progressive butt is what I say. That's what he called it, where they they want us to go, right? Deus human?

Bullshit. If you have support for why 2000 mules can't be considered as evidence show it to me. You've used the word debunked incorrectly again. Debunking can't be debunked and what you've got has been...qualitatively. Go ahead though. Do your copy and paste thing and I'll do mine. We'll see who's been debunked. Show me some crappy Snopes crap. I always like revealing them as the partisan hacks they are. The laughable "fact checkers" of the left are all a bit of a hoot though. And the only real big lie that's been told is by you and your fellow big liars on the left. 2020 was rigged in ways including but not limited to fraud. Oh, and I didn't say just corrupt justices. I used the word "cowardly" as well. Did you miss that? Shame faced, I must admit, we have some of those on our side as well. But neither the corrupt nor the cowardly brought a case to trial where evidence could be considered. The fact so many refused to proves nothing.

No. I have evidence. I already gave you two examples but you seem to think if you ignore them they don't exist. (Mostly because you wish they didn't, I imagine.) I have more I'll give you if you can ever produce any of yours telling me why those two lack credibility. Now as to the only defense you have of the proposition no one is allowed to challenge the credibility of the 2020 election results...you say the court cases that never actually happened, matter. I say the claim you make that cowardly or corrupt judges refusing to try a case in court where evidence can be presented challenged or supported is the final word, well...that's nonsense. In any case it's not evidence. It's the opinion or dodge of some questionable judges - Obama, or Trump appointed. And yes, I include John Roberts or any weakling next to him he can sway. That is just an opinion of course. But it's in answer to your opinion. You have one. I have one. I thought you were going to produce some evidence though. I'm still waiting.

Personally, I think he's only focusing on a slice of what a Prog is though. But he insists on the conventional definition of "Progressive" so I'll let him get away with it. Mostly because he's more or less correct.